Missteps already on slots parlor

I’ve never believed that government should busy itself with saving grown-ups from themselves and their choices, whether those choices involve cigarettes, seat belts, sugary sodas or yes, gambling.

As far as casinos go, that horse left the barn years ago. To rail against the social ills caused by “gaming,” the industry buzzword, is as fruitless as telling compulsive smokers they might get cancer.

But there’s a difference between live-and-let-live and deciding we want a slots parlor in our community. And you can enjoy gambling but still be opposed to a proposal to put slots in the Green Island neighborhood.

I visit Mohegan Sun three or four times a year, prepared to lose 100 bucks at a $15 blackjack table. Blackjack is fun not only for the gambling thrill, but because I usually sit with friends and friendly strangers and enjoy the camaraderie of the group playing against the dealer. It’s a sociable activity.

If we build a slots parlor in Worcester, I’ll never go near it. At Mohegan, I scrupulously avoid the slots areas because I find them dull, dreary and depressing. There’s no socializing, no laughter, no engagement with other humans. What you see is a person, often a senior citizen, sitting for hours in front of a machine, eyes glazed by seductive blinking lights. It’s an isolating experience.

So I can’t get excited about such a facility in Worcester, even if I have no big objection.

But I’m beginning to get nervous, because the long review process has just begun and already city leaders have made blunders and ticked people off, and already the City Council has conspired to circumvent slots opponent Konnie Lukes, who likened the political posturing to a casino.

“The whole process is rigged,” she said. “But the house always wins.”

Within hours of a City Council meeting at which Lukes managed to postpone a motion to move the slots matter forward, the mayor announced that 10 of 11 councilors have decided to move the slots matter forward. How? By mental telepathy? The move came after the meeting adjourned; Lukes has reached out to the attorney general’s office to determine if there was a violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law. If councilors didn’t technically violate the law, they sure skirted its spirit, with a key issue that deserves transparency.

Also, the council had been under the rather bizarre impression that the city was required to negotiate a host agreement with the group seeking to develop the slots parlor, rather than exercise its right to send Mass Gaming packing. As a result, residents at a public meeting were misled and misinformed.

So here’s my concern. How can we expect city leaders to protect our interests against high-rolling businessmen so sophisticated that they spend $400,000 on a casino application fee?

“A lot of these city councilors have stars and dollars in their eyes,” said Allen Fletcher, a resident of Green Island who opposes the slots parlor. “They got to sit down with a billionaire and they’re just giddy.”

Meanwhile, the council stressed that its recent order isn’t an endorsement of the parlor, but simply a request that the manager negotiate a boffo agreement for the parlor. Councilors with an election-year finger in the air also claim that it’s not their job to judge whether the slots parlor is a good idea; that’s up to the voters.

Lukes disagrees, saying elected officials should let people know where they stand.

“Many councilors want to go forward without looking at all the options, such as not going forward,” she said. “They’re passing the buck. I want them to come out in the open and admit they’re in favor of it, or they’re not. What’s wrong with being honest?”